Special to JCE CatholicNewsWorld by Scott Ventureyra:
On
Anti-Religious Indoctrination
Throughout academia there are many thoughtful
educators. There are also those who have agendas to indoctrinate their students
through uncritically accepting and adopting their personal philosophies.
Anti-Religious
Indoctrination
Indoctrination is defined as: “to instruct in a
doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific
partisan or biased belief or point of view.” This definition serves well for understanding anti-religious
indoctrination - the presentation of ideologies that are set to challenge
traditional theistic thought and values, even when couched in seemingly neutral
and subtle ways.
There is an inherent assumption in modern Western
society that people who believe in God are irrational. Popular
culture is suffused with anti-religious material whether it is through
newspapers, TV shows, documentaries, out- spoken celebrities or popular books.
Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that there are many good reasons to
believe in God’s existence. Many modern
versions of arguments for God’s existence are defended by highly intelligent
Christian philosophers and theologians.
Much of this argumentation provides a convincing explanation for the
following phenomena: the origin of the universe, the existence of the universe,
the origin of the laws and constants of physics, the origin of consciousness,
the existence of objective morality, the correspondence of our minds to
understand reality in an accurate way which permits scientific study and the
historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
It is worth pointing out that one can be rationally justified (a natural
intuitive belief known as properly basic) in believing in God and trusting in
Him wholly apart from arguments but the beauty is that these arguments back up
Christian beliefs.
There also exists the postulation that people who question
naturalistic evolution (a view that excludes God from intervening in His
Creation or sustaining it) are irrational.
A great deal of intelligent individuals including scientists believe
that either God directly intervened or was somehow involved in the process of
biological evolution. This could
encompass a variety of positions comprising Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth
Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution (either planned or
guided). Nonetheless, to suggest
evolution is purposeless or unguided are metaphysical claims and not scientific
ones. The empirical science behind
evolutionary theory cannot on its own answer questions of value and meaning
unless coupled with a particular philosophy whether it be naturalistic,
deistic, theistic, pantheistic etc… Nonetheless, the irrationality associated
with questioning naturalistic evolution has permeated popular culture.
Treating questions about certain issues respectfully
is good pedagogy whereas stifling questions through intimidation and appeals to
authority is a form of indoctrination.
This is what is occurring throughout North America from the starting
point of our education systems (e.g., kindergarten) to the graduate level
(PhD).
Examples
of Anti-Religious Indoctrination
Anti-religious indoctrination is beginning at
earliest levels of North American educational systems; at the elementary school
and even kindergarten levels. The GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and
transgendered) activists have made some serious advances in the public school
systems in an attempt to challenge and transform traditional theistic morality
on such issues. Old Testament scholar,
Michael Brown indicates that: “Pro-gay books are being read in elementary
school classrooms, teachers are being mandated to use gender neutral language,
gay activists have been welcomed in the White House, and young evangelicals see
no problem with same-sex marriage.”[i] The inroads have been made into mainstream
culture and are being deeply absorbed into the educational system where by
kindergarten students are being taught terms such as gender queer and queer
theology. There has also been a dramatic
increase in the use of pro-gay books in elementary school classrooms including
titles such as: Two Daddies and Me; Oh
The Things Mommies Do!: What Can Be Better Than Having Two?[ii]
Another form of anti-religious indoctrination
involves the conflation of the philosophical interpretation of scientific
theories with scientific methodology. In
more technical terms, the conflation between metaphysical naturalism with
methodological naturalism. Evolutionary biologists of the highest rank such as Stephen
J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, Jacques Monod and George Gaylord Simpson have been
guilty of this when they have declared that humanity’s purpose is illusory from
their personal interpretations of evolutionary biology.
A commonly associated mantra includes the
regurgitation that the ultimate purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Such a
naturalistically rooted sentiment is repeated at all levels of education. Typically it seems to be repeated in high
school and university classrooms, particularly in biology classes by secular
educators.
Its contemporary formulation can be found in Richard
Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins’
contention in his book is that an organism merely acts as a vehicle to copy
genes to subsequent generations via a Darwinian selection process. It is a gene
centric view; everything must ultimately bow down to the transferring of
genetic information. Obviously, this in
and of itself says nothing about the meaning or purpose of life. Dawkins himself seems to contradict this view
in chapter 11: “We are built as gene
machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against
our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of
the selfish replicators.”[iii]
This flies in the face of genetic determinism that many proponents of
Neo-Darwinism adhere to.
A third form of anti-religious indoctrination
includes the denial of truth. This is
common at the university level. The
remnants of the “death of God movement” are still rearing their ugly heads in
faculties of theology. When you couple this with postmodern epistemology, a
number of professors of theology have made declarative statements akin to “there
is no truth.” Anyone who understands
anything about logic will realize that such a claim is literally self-refuting
since it contradicts what it sets to establish, i.e., it unwittingly claims
there is a truth; through the affirmation that there is none. Perhaps it isn’t
coincidental that such professors may not last too long in faculties of traditional
Christian theology. Who knows what such
theologians truly believe.
The concept of truth is fundamental to theological
reflection. The removal of it places the act of analyzing truth claims
associated with the Christian faith (or any faith for that matter) on the same
level as deciding which McDonald’s meal you prefer.
Such agendas are made clear when such professors subsequently
speak of the resurrection of Jesus, as not being any “less real” if it had been
solely experienced in the minds of the disciples as opposed to something that
had objectively happened to Jesus. This
position is clearly rooted in Kierkegaardian existentialism. Kierkegaard expounded
a form of fideism whereby experience was elevated over reason. Kierkegaard went much too far with his
emphasis on the experiential dimension while attempting to eradicate the
rational element of the faith. Nevertheless,
faith and reason are more intimately involved than that and neither should be compromised
over the other. Traditionally the two have operated harmoniously. PART 2 -
by: Scott Ventureyra is a doctoral candidate in theology at Dominican University College in Ottawa, Canada.
Comments